It seems you and I have different ideas of what enabling genocide looks like. Your opinion seems to be that her working for a ceasefire means she worked for peace. I find that argument weak partially because that was her just doing her job (unsuccessfully), and the ceasefire was only ever temporary and lacked justice (a prerequisite for peace). My opinion is that siding with the genociders counts as enabling genocide. She had the power to speak against Israel and show support for Palestine but did not use that power, she used her voice to say that Israel has the right to war. I also assume she had some power at the DNC and didn’t use it to let a Palestinian speak. Everything I know about what her positions were, based on what she said, her input to the public discourse, puts her firmly on the side of Israel, the genociders.
You can disagree with my opinion, but I haven’t made any statements that are “unequivocally wrong”. The paragraph above is the first time I tried to represent anything but my own opinion, and I still don’t think I did a strawman with it.
I find that argument weak partially because that was her just doing her job
Her job is the only official power she had and she used it to stop the killing and get hostages released. That is directly trying to stop the genocide. Saying otherwise is counterfactual
So you don’t think her voice had any power? If no, that brings into question why she was picked for the role at all. And it’s not “counterfactual” to say that the deals she was making was for pausing the genocide as opposed to stopping.
Can you think of a time a VP came out and directly contradicted their President’s foreign policy?
Is that a good thing? Is that acceptable even when it includes standing by genocide? But when she’s running her own campaign seems an excellent time to distinguish herself from her predecessor. Especially when she got that spot because polling showed Biden couldn’t win. Even more when she’s specifically asked what she’d have done differently per my source from earlier.
Yes, that is counterfactual. Stopping the war was always the ultimate goal. Pauses were just the compromise.
The war will not stop as long as both exist. The past 75 years of conflict have shown that. The goal as stated was only ever going to end with pauses.
That’s still compromising with and defending the genociders. This evergreen meme
There was no strawman. What did I say that was untrue?
Also
“True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
edit
I decided to go ahead and provide sources
https://www.cnn.com/politics/harris-2024-campaign-biden/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-administration-planning-680-million-arms-sale-israel-source-2024-11-27/
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/dnc-palestine-uncommitted-speech-ruwa-romman-1235085916/
Can’t really cite a source for this, I would actually need you to find an instance where she had an opportunity and didn’t support Israel.
A strawman isn’t untrue. It’s just irrelevant to the argument.
Removed by mod
You said she enabled genocide. In reality she worked for peace. That was all the power he had. So you were unequivocally wrong.
It seems you and I have different ideas of what enabling genocide looks like. Your opinion seems to be that her working for a ceasefire means she worked for peace. I find that argument weak partially because that was her just doing her job (unsuccessfully), and the ceasefire was only ever temporary and lacked justice (a prerequisite for peace). My opinion is that siding with the genociders counts as enabling genocide. She had the power to speak against Israel and show support for Palestine but did not use that power, she used her voice to say that Israel has the right to war. I also assume she had some power at the DNC and didn’t use it to let a Palestinian speak. Everything I know about what her positions were, based on what she said, her input to the public discourse, puts her firmly on the side of Israel, the genociders.
You can disagree with my opinion, but I haven’t made any statements that are “unequivocally wrong”. The paragraph above is the first time I tried to represent anything but my own opinion, and I still don’t think I did a strawman with it.
Her job is the only official power she had and she used it to stop the killing and get hostages released. That is directly trying to stop the genocide. Saying otherwise is counterfactual
So you don’t think her voice had any power? If no, that brings into question why she was picked for the role at all. And it’s not “counterfactual” to say that the deals she was making was for pausing the genocide as opposed to stopping.
Can you think of a time a VP came out and directly contradicted their President’s foreign policy?
Yes, that is counterfactual. Stopping the war was always the ultimate goal. Pauses were just the compromise.
Is that a good thing? Is that acceptable even when it includes standing by genocide? But when she’s running her own campaign seems an excellent time to distinguish herself from her predecessor. Especially when she got that spot because polling showed Biden couldn’t win. Even more when she’s specifically asked what she’d have done differently per my source from earlier.
The war will not stop as long as both exist. The past 75 years of conflict have shown that. The goal as stated was only ever going to end with pauses.
That’s still compromising with and defending the genociders. This evergreen meme
Also this quote feels relevant